Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#171

Post by randall »

nailer wrote: post #168
skinnymuch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But IBM isn’t that powerful in any direct way any more compared to other tech companies. Oracle and rising powers like PayPal and Salesforce would make more sense. The latter companies still do a fraction of IBM’s revenue and profit. but they’re growing. I wouldn’t be surprised if their market caps are past IBM by now. Unless IBM is being included because of the Red Hat acquisition.

Microsoft isn't that powerful either. Windows is a small percentage of computing and Office simply isn't a big deal. They're also a pretty good company now.

“Microsoft. Microsoft had a market capitalization of US$ 904.86 billion for the first quarter of 2019, ranking as the largest company in the world. ...”

and that’s just the average. Today they’re a trillion dollar company. That’s 2x Facebook.

And yeah, ibm is included because it makes the mneumonic better.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#172

Post by nailer »

randall wrote: post #171
nailer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft isn't that powerful either. Windows is a small percentage of computing and Office simply isn't a big deal. They're also a pretty good company now.

“Microsoft. Microsoft had a market capitalization of US$ 904.86 billion for the first quarter of 2019, ranking as the largest company in the world. ...” and that’s just the average. Today they’re a trillion dollar company. That’s 2x Facebook. And yeah, ibm is included because it makes the mneumonic better.

Yep Microsoft are certainty valuable, they're just not influential. Like IBM or Oracle. Not like Apple, Google or Facebook.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#173

Post by majani »

erklik wrote: post #161
sprafa wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually anybody but Hollywood exec types love Netflix, particularly creatives (the people who actually DO the things). Netflix has been making enormous amounts of content, even for smaller markets like Spain and betting on great people who are making really good shows (see ‘casa de papel’) If you are a creative person you are enthused about streaming because suddenly there’s a huge amount of content being funded. T…

I don't understand why movies like The Wolf of Wall Street would be hard to fund. The talent i.e. DiCaprio, Jonah Hill etc are all great and known actors bound to make a movie succeed, especially DiCaprio. and Scorsese is also a well-known, successful director. Why would producers have any issues funding a movie for them? Is it the controversial nature i.e. nudity etc that was the problem?

Movies are an insanely risky business if you look past the top blockbusters. And right now the blockbusters are almost purely superhero movies, remakes and reboots, so outside of that it's gonna be hard to get any funding.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#174

Post by habosa »

threeseed wrote: post #112
habosa wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely not-nice behavior but is common. On an iOS App Store listing you can't even say the word Android, etc.

Did you check this before you wrote this comment ? Because there are apps called Android Remote, Android TV, Google formerly had a an Android Wear app and plenty of Remote Desktop apps that mention Android.

When I last published an app it was cross-platform and I was denied for having "sync with the Android version and the Chrome extension" in my listing even though that was one of the main value props for my app.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#175

Post by AlchemistCamp »

krustyburger wrote: post #125
khawkins wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these features were critical enough that you could found a company on them, then clearly they brought innovation to the scene. If they had not come along, it's unclear as to whether Facebook would have ever introduced those features in their products. "Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pocke…

I think FAANG is less useful as an abbreviation these days because it includes Netflix. I don’t think Netflix is guilty of much of anything sinister, at least by anyone’s reckoning except certain movie and tv studio executives.

Netflix is also tiny compared to the others. Its entire business is analogous to a single product of Amazon's (Prime video). Not only that but they're reliant on Amazon AWS for hosting.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#176

Post by mtnGoat »

xwdv wrote: post #118
mtnGoat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

never thought of it this way. if it was laid out as a red/blue pill like that, i'm not sure what id take. i think once you are a billionaire the average person probably just assumes your not nice anyways, might as well triple up the cash.

Well here’s another way to think about: you’re not just “tripling up your cash”, you’re getting a new boss in the form of thousands of shareholders expecting you to meet specific performance goals or else the value of your company goes to shit. Running a public company is hell compared to a private one. When you take your 7 billion in cash you are free, no one gives a shit about what you do or even cares unless you’r…

oh headache wise, id take the 7b and run for the hills. if it was cash play, id stick out the shareholder issues at least until i lost on them and they sent me packing. :)

i would really never want to be "important" at a public company, unless it came with big golden handcuffs and parachutes.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#177

Post by skinnymuch »

monkeydreams wrote: post #164
skinnymuch wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook was nowhere near where it is today. It doesn’t even make money the same way with the majority of revenue and profits coming from mobile, with IG being a bigger and bigger factor. And it’s much more international (and monetizing international) now. Google was the giant when they tried Google+.

Before google+ launched Facebook had over 750 million users. It was hardly a small fish. In either case, though, using market supremecy to crush competition should not be rewarded.

During that time period FB’s growth was meteoric and unprecedented. That’s the only reason Google likely took so long as to launch when FB is at 800M users. Because at beginning of decade they were at half that. Go back to beginning of 2009 and they are close to a third from beginning of decade.

They weren’t small in terms of users. But they were small in that just a few years prior, their user amounts were a fraction of what they were during Google+‘s launch. With Friendster, Mysapce, and all the me too social networks losing, there was no way to know for sure Facebook would win out and last as a huge company in the early 00s.

In early 00s, their revenue and profits hadn’t caught up to user growth either. The mobile explosion hadn’t fully happened yet. As well as Instagram now being a key part of their growth and solid part of their revenue and profit.

Post reply on HN